Yesterday morning, Jacques Tremblay, we heard Mr. René Lévesque, President of the Parti Québécois, speak to us about a document which has been under discussion inside the party as well as outside, for the past three weeks.

This document, the title of which is “When we will truly be at home” and not “When we will really be masters in our own house” as I said this morning –

We recall that this document constitutes a set of propositions which – uh – is presented to the PQ partisans and to the whole of the population of Quebec. It proposes a particular arrangement of three elements of our economic life – of what would be our economic life in an independent Quebec – an arrangement of community business, private business, and state [business], the latter occupying a dominant position or capping an aggregate of these economic structures.

The instruments we talked about a little bit yesterday – uh – we should mention that we perhaps forgot the Société de réorganisation industrielle (Industrial reorganization corporation) which is one of the elements proposed by the PQ document as major in the organization of the Quebec government.There was of course the Caisse de dépot, that – we had talked about the Bank of Quebec.

And what is above all important to underscore is the absolutely primary role that the Government will play in an independent Quebec. The important role also that would be played by the cooperative movement, and also probably – at least that’s what the people who wrote this manifesto would like – the role that would be played by groupings of citizens, the citizens’ movements, the community participation movements, etc.

And finally, there is the whole question of the role of the private business, which, let’s say, would be a bit less free than it currently is.

Good. Then, you’ve met – Jacques Tremblay – people from various disciplines, I think in particular a sociologist, Mr. Pizarro, who lingered over one point in particular, or rather two points in particular in this manifesto.

In the Parti québécois’s text, there are two tacit points of reference. One is socialism Swedish-style, which is to say, uh, uh, okay – in principle retaining private business, but under Government control, uh – over the business in order to civilize it.

From another aspect, inspiration in the Yugoslav model* – which is to say participation, co-management, self-management. Uh –

So, on the good side, the fact – um – the role of the Government as an element of control but at the same time a certain control over the Government.

*Translator’s note: A former country of southeastern Europe bordering the Adriatic Sea; formed in 1918 and named Yugoslavia in 1929; controlled by Marshal Tito as a communist state until his death in 1980. On April 7, 1963, Yugoslavia proclaimed itself a socialist republic. NB: The manifesto and the radio show are both in 1972, at which time, Yugoslavia is clearly communist.

To be able to carry off a program like that, there must be real strength, and this real strength is the support of the population. Now, (as to) the support of the population, uh, okay, the PQ doesn’t have it. The question is whether they can in fact have it. It might well be desirable that they have it. But, uh – what is remarkable in Quebec, is the groups of working-class movements which very much elude all the organizations that try to give them a framework.*

*Translator’s note: “mouvements populaires qui débordent de beaucoup toutes les organisations qui essaient de les encadrer.” – The transcript of this phrase was suggested by a native French-speaker in France. The suggested phrase seems adapted to the context in other sections.

Uh – as well, in the trade union movement, which, in a definitely political spirit, is a quite remarkable phenomenon. So, uh – maybe the PQ is implicitly counting on a popular set-up – uh, which would have goals far more radical than those of the PQ – and to which the PQ could give a framework, and even, at times, put the brakes on.*

The project of a new Quebec – uh – whether it’s independent or not – has been ardently debated in the trade unions lately, in any case especially in the past year. This produced two documents in particular, Jacques Tremblay, (“L’État, rouage de notre exploitation”) [‘The State:Our wheel to turn’?], a document that was presented by the FTQ (Federation of Quebec Workers), and another document, this one from the CSN entitled “Ne comptons que sur nos propres moyens” (‘Count only on ourselves’ [?]).

NB: At this point in the broadcast, two new documents are being discussed. Both were produced by local trade unions in reply to the PQ “manifesto”, Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous, first discussed above. The discussion will return to the “manifesto” further below.

I want to say that in each of these documents there is a conception of the State which is also present – a conception of the mode of production, a conception of the place of workers in the social whole which underlies, let’s say, the propositions in these documents – and uh – I thought it was interesting (that managers[?]) and economists who took part in the drafting of these documents –

As it happens, one of them is Jean-Guy Frenette, who is with the FTQ*, and who took part in drafting “L’Etat : rouage de notre exploitation”.

Government is more than that for us – when we say The Government, it’s a WHEEL we use, it’s that the Government as a political structure – effectively is like a political apparatus which it controls – is effectively geared* into all the other structures of society.And, amongst others, to the economic and financial structures.

*Translator’s note: A native French-speaker in France suggested a French transcript of this phrase, i.e.: “est intimement relié à toutes les autres structures de la société.” That’s a nice clean sentence, but I’m still not sure that’s what he said. Nonetheless, the suggested transcript could be translated: “is intimately linked to all the other structures of society.”

And the PQ in this document leaves even – leaves nevertheless plenty of room for trade unionism because one wants it to be, uh, generalized, and it’s given a major place in precisely this mechanism of co-decision* – uh – Are you happy with that?

*Translator’s note: I think there is no single word in English that could translate “concertation”, which seems to mean all working together at the same time, in common action. My impulse is to say “co-action”. However, I have seen it elsewhere formally translated as “co-decision”.

In this plan? Uh – I think that the PQ still considers trade unionism as having to be trade unionism (of businesses)*.

*Translator’s note: I had trouble understanding at this point. Two Francophones made very different suggestions; both are quite interesting: [1] “syndicalisme d’affaires” (trade unionism of businesses) or [2] “syndicalisme d’autrefois”, which might be translated something like “old-style trade unionism”).

And it’s precisely this type of trade unionism that we want to call into question. Trade unionism must carry the social project; must carry the conception of the organization of a socialist society – a self-managed society, ok – it is up to the workers who may – who are entirely responsible for their production, and the means of production – uh – upon which they work.

Now, uh – it is, it is true that the PQ – uh – at the present time sets out the design and obviously gives us the garantee that trade unionism will be able to be exercised in the most complete manner and that all workers will be able to unionize. That’s it. There is no government program which gives this guarantee to the workers – and in this sense there is in this plan – it responds completely to the require- – to the current requirements of the trade union movement on the place of trade unionism.

On the other hand, the dream of co-decision as it appears in that manifesto seems to me much less plausible. It’s a dream – co-decision, uh – in a LIBERAL and even modern economy. Because co-decision can never eliminate the fundamental divergences of interest which exist – between the workers and between the owners of the means of production, whether it’s the state or it’s – uh – private business which is in any case – will always dominate in all sectors with the obvious exception of the forest, okay, and maybe communications.

Jacques Tremblay, we can already speak about the fairly clear reaction on the part of certain trade union leaders, on the part of certain professors as well – who are looking at, who are studying the Canadian and Quebec reality.

And, uh, Mr. Dion had concluded his testimony by synthesizing his thought, saying that it was a coherent whole – that it was subject to criticism but that it could not be knocked down, if you like, as the basis of a program, and he, uh, underscored precisely what we see today, which is that it certainly would displease the militant Left, which is to say of the Marxist connotation in the PQ, and the nationalist right, and one thinks of a certain class of business managers and of executives.

I’m thinking in particular uh – during publication of the document “QUAND NOUS SERONS VRAIMENT CHEZ NOUS” – of the reaction of Mr. Scrivener, the President of Bell Canada, who characterized this program as “dangerous”, “unrealistic”, and who envisioned a kind of Apocalypse of Business, if ever this program, if ever one attempted to apply this program. And in effect there have been few – if any up to now – business leaders who have said “Yes”, this program interests us. We think that business has a role to play. Within it.

I’m thinking – I’m thinking of a reaction of a businessman whose name I can’t recall right now, but who had underscored the fact that the day when Quebec became independent, probably that he would become a separatist.

But, from now until that day, from now until that event occurs, well, the reaction of the business leader is perhaps normal, an understandable reaction, given his position. Because he sees his role of entrepreneur, his role as the motor of society called into question because the motor of society in this program that the PQ is proposing is truly, and almost solely, the Government.

In any case, unquestionably, business will have a radically changed role, above all big business, in particular big American business, foreign business, and also Canadian businesses, and for that reason the reactions of people – for example of the Quebec Employers Council – are interesting to know.

I think that private business is the best motor, is it not, the best motor of the economy, the best way to create wealth. And I don’t see in the Government this – this dynamism, this, this possibility of creating wealth – uh – that one finds throughout the document.

For all practical purposes here, they are going to give to the Government the role it plays in socialist countries in Eastern Europe. They are going to centralize production, they are going to construct plans – uh – coercive plans – and for all practical purposes, as I said – uh – give to the Government total control. And one must expect that the, the, the economy will progress pretty much like that of the Poles or the Czechs or the East Germans.

The fate that is reserved for the private company, just to make a crack, is that of a business that would belong to Quebecers and which would be controlled by the Government. Which would hire lots of people and would make very little money.

( – – – – ) have alluded in the document to planning, to the “Plan” that one would like to establish.Is the concept of the “Plan” sufficiently well explained in the document and does it correspond to the idea that you do a certain amount of planning? Because, I think you are not opposed to planning?

Even if you were told that this plan will be established in concert with the three main elements – uh – constituting the economy – that is to say, the bosses, that’s the businesses, the trade unions, and the Government.

Well, the document doesn’t give much confidence to bosses as to their typicalness in such a milieu. We know, for example, how trade unionism is described in the document. We know the importance that is, that is given to it. But, uh, I fear that the third role, that of the bosses in such co-decision is very slight. [Cut off by music, tape ends here, as found online.]

– 30 –

PERMISSION:Nota bene: This French transcript and the exclusive English translation are by Kathleen Moore for the legal research purposes of Habeas Corpus Canada, The Official Legal Challenge to North American Union. Document date: 7 January 2015, based on the document of 28 May 2014. Permission is given to use this document, with credit to its origin. If you find this document useful or interesting, please support The Official Legal Challenge To North American Union: PayPal: habeas.corpus.canada@live.com

The 7zip folder contains: (1) the AUDIO TAPE of the French CBC radio show discussing the Manifesto; (2) The Table of Contents of the Manifesto (Translated); (3) an 18-MB PDF file of the manifesto (scanned at the law library of the French University of Montreal; (4) an OCR of the manifesto

Robert Rumilly:
Two important authors on the communist infiltration of Canada are Alan Stang and Robert Rumilly. Please read my exclusive English translation of two chapters from Rumilly's 1956 book The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada (L'Infiltration gauchiste au Canada français).

ANTICOMMUNIST ARCHIVE & STORIES:

EXCLUSIVE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois, calling for a Communist State of Quebec
Segments translated so far:

UPDATE 15 August 2016: 100% complete! First English translation of 1972 PQ manifesto for a Communist State of Quebec. This is what we were really "voting" for in 1980 and 1995. There is more text in the PDF download than is posted online in html: https://www.sendspace.com/file/pgg7mg

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous: 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec